-
Sustainability 2012, 4, 2210-2246; doi:10.3390/su4092210
sustainability ISSN 2071-1050
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Article
Environmental Attitudes and Environmental BehaviorWhich Is the
Horse and Which Is the Cart?
Efrat Eilam 1,* and Tamar Trop 2,*
1 School of Education, Institute of Sustainability and
Innovation (ISI), Victoria University, P.O. Box 14428, Melbourne,
Victoria 8001, Australia
2 Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, TechnionIsrael
Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel
* Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mails:
[email protected] or [email protected] (E.E.);
[email protected] (T.T.); Tel.: +61-3-991-929-75 (E.E.);
+972-4-834-4815 (T.T.); Fax: +61-3-9919-2242 (E.E.).
Received: 13 August 2012; in revised form: 3 September 2012 /
Accepted: 3 September 2012 / Published: 14 September 2012
Abstract: The present article challenges the prevailing
perception in the field of environmental education that acquisition
of environmental behavior is an ultimate goal of the educational
process, in comparison to acquisition of environmental attitudes,
which is perceived as a minor goal. The article presents a
compilation of results obtained from two studies that shed new
light on the relationship between influences on environmental
attitudes and influences on environmental behavior. The results
suggest that: (a) among adults, the strategies required for
influencing attitudes are different from those required for
influencing behaviors; (b) the mechanisms for achieving influence
among children are different from those among adults; and (c)
conventional educational approaches, such as behavior modification,
can influence behavior more easily than they can influence
attitudes. The results provide grounds for questioning the
prevailing belief that individual acquisition of responsible
environmental behavior can drive changes on the global political
scale. We suggest increasing the focus of environmental education
on construction of attitudes.
Keywords: environmental attitudes; environmental behavior;
environmental influence; intergenerational influence; community
environmental education; community-based education
OPEN ACCESS
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2211
1. Introduction
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the relationships between
acquisition of environmental attitudes and acquisition of
environmental behavior were a topic of much research and debate in
the field of environmental education (e.g., [1]). Early models of
environmental education, beginning in the 1970s, assumed some type
of linear relationship between attitudes and behavior, where: (a)
positive attitudes lead to positive behavior [2,3]; and (b)
positive behavior is perceived as an ultimate goal of environmental
education [1,410]. Through continuous research, the linear model of
relationships was discredited (e.g., [1116]). Yet, while the idea
of a linear progression has subsided, the perception of acquisition
of environmental behavior as an ultimate goal of the educational
process has maintained a strong hold in the environmental education
community [17,18].
The turn of the century and the new millennium saw a shift in
the focus of environmental education research. The traditional
emphasis on predefined educational outcomes gave way to emphasis on
open-ended processes in which the goals of education are not
predetermined [19,20]. This shift can probably be attributed to the
combination of relatively poor results of the old approaches
together with paradigm shifts in environmental education. New
research trends emphasize development of systems thinking,
resilience, and other emerging ideas (e.g., [21,22]).
In abandoning the old model, which is now perceived as
simplistic, many researchers also abandoned questioning the goals
of environmental education. In this sense, to some degree, the baby
was thrown out with the bath water. In other words, whereas the old
models first assumption (regarding the linear and causal
relationship between attitudes and behavior) was examined and
disproved, the other assumption (regarding the greater importance
of behavior over attitude) was to a certain extent taken for
granted and left to linger on as a living fossil.
The present article aims to re-open the study of the
relationships between processes of influence on environmental
attitudes and on environmental behavior, as well as to question the
taken-for-granted approach in which acquisition of environmental
behavior is perceived as a higher and more desired achievement
compared with acquisition of environmental attitudes. The article
analyzes these open questions in environmental education by
employing different approaches and methodologies from previous
research regarding these issues.
The present article puts forward the following claims:
The influence of environmental education is composite and
multifaceted. The same sources of influence will influence children
and adults in different ways, and among adultsthe strategies
required for influencing attitudes differ from those required for
influencing behavior;
The separation between influences on environmental attitudes and
influences on environmental behavior gradually develops with
maturation;
Conventional strategies commonly applied by formal school
education and by the media can influence the behavior of students
parents more easily than they can influence their attitudes. A
comparison between formative influences on behavior and formative
influences on attitudes reveals that the educational strategies
required for successfully influencing adults attitudes are more
complex than those required for influencing their behavior;
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2212
Accumulating evidence suggests that there is a need to
re-evaluate the status of achieving behavioral change as an
ultimate goal of environmental education and to reconsider the
status of attitudinal changes as an important goal of environmental
education.
To support the above claims, the article will present a
compilation of results obtained from two different studies using
different methodologies. The following theoretical background
provides the foundations for the two studies and for the analysis
of their results.
2. Theoretical Background
The relationships between attitudes and behavior have been a
matter of debate in psychological and sociological research for
decades, with thousands of studies addressing various aspects of
these relationships. In the field of environmental education
research, however, there has been relatively much less
investigation and, as mentioned above, aspects of the relationships
between attitudes and behavior have to some degree been taken for
granted. In what follows we provide an overview of these
relationships, with an emphasis on the complexity involved in the
development of attitudes.
2.1. Definition
2.1.1. Defining Attitude
The term attitude has been defined in various ways. Following
are three definitions proposed in the literature:
An enduring combination of motivational, emotional, perceptual
and cognitive processes with respect to some aspect of our
environment [23];
Learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or
unfavorable manner with respect to a given object [24];
A persons overall evaluation of persons (including oneself),
objects, and issues [25]. The presented studies focus on attitudes
towards environmental issues.
2.1.2. Defining Behavior
The term behavior is mostly intuitively understood and most
psychological and sociological research into behavior has not
suggested definitions of the term. However, in the context of the
present studies, we understand the term as any active
responsiveness to current environmental issues, believed to be
pro-environmental by the person performing the response.
2.2. The Environmental Education Perspective
The most widely accepted notion among scholars in the field of
environmental education is that the ultimate goal of environmental
education is to influence behavior and to develop active
citizenship [1,5,9,2630].
Environmental attitudes are commonly perceived as preconditions
for achieving environmental behavior. Hines and colleagues [1]
conducted a meta-analysis of the relationships between
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2213
pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. They viewed intention
to act as a determinant of pro-environmental behavior. Intention to
act itself was described as a composite factor, composed of
attitudes among other variables. Bamberg and Moser [31] repeated
the meta-analysis of Hines et al. [1] on a larger and more
up-to-date sample of studies and reached similar results. Such
findings led many researchers to perceive attitude acquisition as a
step along the way towards acquisition of environmental behavior
[5,7,3234].
For example, in a 1993 survey that was held in 22 countries,
Dunlap and colleagues [35] found high levels of environmental
attitudes and low levels of environmental behavior. Chawla [32]
refers to Dunlap et al.s findings as indicating low achievement in
environmental education since it is ultimately peoples actions that
make a difference (p. 367). Marcinkowski [18], who developed a
General Logic Model for Resource Education Programs, refers to
influences on attitudes as an outcome, whereas influences on
behaviors are regarded as impacts and benefits. In Hungerford and
Volks [5] model of variables involved in environmental behavior,
the variables environmental sensitivity and attitudes are regarded
as entry-level, implying that these factors constitute no more than
basic prerequisites that are insufficient for a comprehensive
environmental education.
The important role of acquisition of environmental behavior is
often explained by the assumption that changes in environmental
behavior on a personal level can lead to changes in sustainability
on a societal level. In other words: if everyone behaves
responsibly with environmental sustainability in mind, the society
will perform sustainably. Coyle [36], in his 2005 report regarding
results obtained from 10 years of NEETF/Roper surveys of
environmental literacy in the U.S., demonstrates this claim with
the following words: With nearly 300 million people living in the
United States, small changes in behavior can have a huge impact (p.
33). He also states that [m]any of todays leading pollution
problems are increasingly the result of individual actions, thus
implying that environmental sustainability is a linear additive
effect of behaviors.
The above reasoning, which underlies the goals of environmental
education, can also be found in official documents referring to the
goals of education for sustainable development. For example, the UN
Decade of Education for Sustainable Development implementation
scheme puts forward the claim that ESD aims to move us to adopting
behaviours and practices which enable all to live a full life
without being deprived of basics ([37], p. 4). A possible
interpretation of this statement is that if behaviors change on a
personal level, they will lead to a change on the overall
level.
2.3. Beyond Environmental Education
Beyond the environmental education literature, investigations
into the nature of the relationships between attitudes and behavior
date back as far as the 1930s. In 1934, LaPiere [38] published
results of an empirical study in which a Chinese couple entered 251
businesses, such as hotels and restaurants, in the United States
and asked for service. They were refused service only once. Half a
year later, in response to a letter from LaPiere, 118 of the 128
businesses that responded claimed that they would not accept
members of the Chinese race as customers. LaPiere concluded that
attitudes could be easily and quantitatively measured but were
largely irrelevant to the prediction of behavior. The findings of
LaPiere were reiterated in further studies. In 1969, Wicker [39]
published a review of 47 empirical
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2214
studies of attitudes and behavior. His conclusion was that
attitudes rarely account for more than 10% of the behavioral
variance, and therefore attitudes are unrelated or slightly related
to overt behaviors ([34], p. 65). A later meta-analysis by Kraus
[40] showed more complex relationships between the variables. The
conclusion of 88 attitude-behavior studies was that from a
theoretical perspective, attitudes significantly predict further
behavior. At the same time, it was also concluded that the ability
to actually predict behavior on the basis of attitudes is in effect
very low due to a combination of reasons. The first is the
relatively low mean correlation that was found between the two
variables (r = 0.38). Another major obstacle is that moderating
effects of various types were found to be significant intervening
variables to the extent that they acted as predicting variables
themselves. Various studies have aimed to identify the moderating
effects that can predict behavior. Petty and colleagues [41]
claimed that the common finding of the various studies was that
attitudes that are based on high amounts of issue-relevant thinking
are more likely to influence behavior. By the mid-20th century,
research regarded behavior as an outcome of situational rather than
dispositional influences [4143].
Research regarding influence processes on attitudes indicates
that strong attitudes are more stable over time and have a larger
impact on behavior compared with weak attitudes [44]. Strong
attitudes can be identified by their extremity [45], by their
accessibility (e.g., [46]), and by the confidence of the
attitude-holders [47]. A wide variety of variables can influence
the development of strong attitudes. Such variables include
extensive issue-relevant thinking [41,48], a heritable component
[49], and a consistent and organized belief structure [50].
Attitudes have often been described as having an affective
component and a cognitive component [40]. Disinger and Tomsen [51]
perceive attitudes as being closely related to the term worldview
that was discussed by Norton [52]. According to Norton, the axioms
of a worldview, while often inexplicit and hidden, represent
rock-bottom commitments that the holders of a worldview would
eventually cite as supporting the larger edifice of their beliefs
([52], p. 75). At the same time, worldviews are dynamic and
changeable. They are constructed and reconstructed by the
influences of knowledge and new experiences [51,53].
Various models have been proposed for explaining processes that
influence attitudinal change. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of
attitude change [25,54] provides a theory for explaining the
processes through which attitudes and the strength of those
attitudes can change [25]. Other explanations include the
following: (i) interaction between attention, comprehension,
learning, acceptance, and retention of the message and its
conclusion [55]; and (ii) a mere exposure effect [56,57]. It is now
accepted that influential processes on attitudes involve complex
processes and complex effects [25].
From a theoretical perspective, the theory of cognitive
dissonance, which was introduced by Festinger [58], provides a
basis for understanding the relationships between attitudes and
behavior. Contrary to the accepted notion that in order to change
peoples behavior there is a need to first change their attitudes,
the theory postulates that if one induces a person to change his or
her behavior, an attitude change will follow in order to fit the
new behavior. Because behavior is usually difficult to undo,
dissonance can be reduced by changing beliefs and attitudes to
bring them in line with the behavior (i.e., convincing oneself that
the behavior reflects ones true position). This prediction was
confirmed by repeated laboratory tests [5963]. In the most famous
dissonance experiment, students at Stanford University engaged in a
rather boring task of turning pegs on a board, and then were
induced
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2215
to tell a waiting subject that the task was interesting, in
exchange for either a sufficient ($20) or an insufficient ($1)
incentive. When later asked how interesting they actually found the
task to be, students reported that the task was more interesting
the less they were paid [62]. Evidence suggests that attitudinal
changes that are induced by behavior are relatively enduring
[25].
2.4. Influencing Children versus Influencing Adults
Various studies have examined the effect of age on attitudes
susceptibility to influence. Children were found to be more open to
suggestion (e.g., [64,65]). Other research has indicated that
attitude stability is greater among older individuals than among
younger individuals (e.g., [66]). There is an indication that
people generally become less susceptible to influence as they grow
older (e.g., [67]). There is currently no theory regarding the
mental processes that drive such changes in susceptibility or
regarding the characteristics of these changes.
The following studies examine processes of influence on
environmental attitudes and on environmental behavior. The first
study examines differences in the processes by which environmental
schools influence students versus students parents. The second
study examines how various formative environmental experiences
interact to influence adults attitudes and behavior. The second
study also analyzes the role of the environmental school as a
formative influence on students parents. The compilation of the
results provides new insights into the relationship between
attitudes and behavior with regard to environmental education.
3. The Studies
Two separate studies were carried out by the authors, in Israel.
The aim of the first study, which was conducted in the years
20072009, was to evaluate the influence of environmental schools on
their communities. The aim of the second study, which was carried
out in the years 20092010, was to assess how various formative
experiences influence the environmental attitudes and behaviors of
adults in Israel. For the purposes of the two studies, we define an
environmental school as a school with an environmental education
program that was in place for at least two years prior to the
beginning of the studies, and that is certified as a Green School
by the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection.
The two studies were seemingly unrelated. They posed different
research questions and employed different methods of analysis. Yet,
they yielded similar results regarding the relations between
influences on environmental attitudes and influences on
environmental behavior. The present article will refer to these
joint insights by presenting relevant analyses and results from the
two studies.
Following are presentations of the methods, results and
conclusions of each study separately. The subsequent discussion
section will highlight results of both studies in compilation.
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2216
3.1. Study 1: Evaluation of Environmental Schools Influences on
Their Communities
3.1.1. Research Objectives and Background
Environmental schools can influence parents attitudes and
behavior by two major paths, as follows: (a) directly, through
activities that involve parents and correspondence with them;
and/or (b) indirectly, through intergenerational influences of
students who internalize their learning and pass it on to their
parents [30,6875]. Therefore, when examining the impact of
environmental schools, it is important to look at both direct and
indirect influences.
Twelve indicators were developed for evaluating the influence of
environmental schools on students and on their parents [73]. The
indicators assessed aspects of schools direct influences and of
their indirect influences through intergenerational influences and
intra-generational influences. We studied the following aspects of
influence: influence on sustainability agenda; influence on
attitudes; and influence on behavior.
The key characteristics of the applied methodology employed
relative comparisons of various variables. We compared children to
schools programs and we compared parents to schools programs and to
the children. Relative comparisons enabled us to identify flows of
influences from within the web of influences that are operative in
the system. In the real world of environmental education,
influences flow at multi directions from various sources. It is
unlikely to find one influence source operating in a cause-effect
linear way. Being a nonlinear and complex system a pre-post testing
methodology is inappropriate, as there is no way of isolating
variables and controlling them. By developing a set of indicators
that are capable of characterizing the system and by employing
comparative analyses and cross validations analyses between the 12
indicators, we were able to present valid conclusions regarding the
schools influences on parents and on children in the aspects of
agenda, attitudes and behavior.
Herein we present the analyses of the 4 indicators (out of 12)
that provided information relevant to claims put forward in the
present article. We note that the results of these analyses form
part of a broader matrix that is structurally built to provide a
comprehensive evaluation. Within this larger framework, no one
indicator stands alone. The overall evaluation is an outcome of
cross comparisons between results obtained from the various
indicators. Though the four indicators presented here are removed
from their larger context, their explanatory capacity is not
reduced, as regards to the present context.
The following sections describe relevant components of the
study: (a) participants; (b) data sources; and (c) methods of
analysis, results and conclusions for each of the four
indicators.
3.1.2. Participants
Six Israeli environmental schools and members of their
communities participated in study 1. The study sample included
principals and leading environmental education teachers, school
students, and their parents. Appendix A presents descriptors of the
sampled schools and communities (Table 1.1).
The schools in the sample included five elementary schools and
one school with both an elementary school and a junior high school
combined under one administration. Schools were chosen in
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2217
accordance with the following criteria: (a) the school has an
established environmental education program that has been
implemented for at least 2 years; we note that the duration of
implementation of the EE program varies between schools, making it
possible to evaluate influences at different stages of program
maturity; (b) the school is recommended by EE experts; and (c) the
school is located in a medium to large city. The reason for the
latter criterion is that 92% of Israels population lives in urban
communities. Schools and their communities were chosen on the basis
of whether they reflect the dominant urban lifestyle in Israel.
Most of the EE schools in Israel are located in two major
metropolitan areas: Haifa and Tel Aviv. The schools we chose are
located in cities whose cluster membership in the socio-economic
index is 68 (mediumhigh) [76]. Allocation of students to schools is
done in accordance to geographical proximity.
Though the sample is representative of the Israeli urban middle
class population, we assume that with appropriate verifications,
the sample could also be representative of similar communities in
western countries. The assumption is based on the characteristics
of the participants, who are highly connected to Western cultures,
often travel to these countries, and carry out business and studies
outside Israel.
3.1.3. Data Sources
Data sources for the analyses presented below included written
questionnaires that were handed out in each school to the school
principal and to leading environmental education teachers, parents,
and students. Table 1 presents a summary of the number of returned
questionnaires in each school. All students in the sampled classes
filled in the questionnaires during class sessions (see Appendix A,
Table 1.1, column 4 for number of sampled classes at each school).
Each student at the sampled classes was asked to deliver a
questionnaire to one of their parents. There is no information
regarding how many questionnaires were in effect delivered and how
many of these were answered.
Table 1. Number of returned questionnaires by school.
School number
Number of principals and teachers
Number of students
Number of parents
1 4 147 52 2 3 105 28 3 1 47 16 4 221 19 5 2 80 36 6 68 12
Total 10 668 163
3.1.4. Methods of Analysis, Results and Conclusions, by
Indicator
The following sections present analyses and results for four
relevant indicators. Each analysis provides information regarding
the following aspects of influence:
Indicator ASchools direct influence on parents environmental
behavior;
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2218
Indicator BSchools direct and indirect (combined) influence on
parents environmental attitudes;
Indicator CSchools indirect influence on parents environmental
behavior through intergenerational influence; and schools influence
on students environmental behavior;
Indicator DSchools influence on students environmental
attitudes. In what follows, the analysis for each indicator is
presented according to the following sequence:
(a) the indicator; (b) data sources; (c) methods of analysis;
and (d) results and conclusions.
3.1.4.1. Indicator A: Degree to which Parents Adopted
Responsible Environmental Behavior in Response to the Schools
Regulations/Requests
The aim of indicator A is to assess the outcomes of the schools
direct efforts to influence parents behaviors.
Data sources. We gathered information for indicator A by asking
parents to report whether their childs environmental school had
ever asked them to comply with behavioral requests and, if so, to
report regarding the effects of such requests. For verification,
school principals and leading EE teachers were also asked whether
they had approached parents with requests concerning environmental
behavior and, if so, what the requests had been.
Method of analysis. Each of the participating schools had
requested that parents comply with some behavioral requests.
Typical school requests were of the following nature: Asking
parents to send lunches in non-disposable packaging, send plastic
bottles for the schools recycling bins, participate in an
environmental project organized by the school (e.g., cleaning a
natural site) or, prepare costumes from reused materials. The
purpose of the analysis was to answer the question: How did the
schools behavioral requests affect the parents environmental
behavior?
To analyze the influences, we calculated the frequency
distribution of parents answers to the question regarding their
response to the schools request (see Table 2 and Figure 1). On the
basis of the frequency distribution, we defined four categories of
influences according to the following two variables: (1) the
duration of time for which the behavior is sustained (short-term or
extended term); and (2) the extent of influence, in terms of
context of behavioral change (see Table 2). The latter refers to
the question of whether parents changed their behavior only in the
context of school (for example, by preparing their childrens school
lunches in non-disposable packaging) or internalized the change,
adopting the behavior in broader contexts, beyond school (for
example, by preparing their own lunches for work in non-disposable
packaging).
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2219
Table 2. Potential behavioral change correlated with behavior
requested through school-based education programs, by school.
Categories of Behavioral effect
School 1 (N = 52; V = 26)
School 2 (N = 28; V = 24)
School 3 (N = 16; V = 13)
School 4 (N = 19; V = 15)
School 5 (N = 36; V = 31)
School 6 (N = 12; V = 5)
TOTAL Percent of sample (V = 114; N = 163)
1No behavioral change; same behavior as before
15% 21% 23% 33% 16% 50% 22%
2No behavioral change; request unreasonable or difficult
2% 4% 8% 0% 0% 0% 2%
3Changed behavior for a limited time
8% 21% 15% 20% 3% 0% 11%
4Changed behavior only in school context
25% 8% 31% 20% 32% 0% 23%
5Changed behavior beyond school context
46% 29% 23% 20% 45% 50% 37%
63 + 4 Changed behavior for a limited time, only in school
context
2% 8% 0% 0% 3% 0% 3%
73 + 5 Changed behavior for a limited time, beyond school
context
2% 8% 0% 7% 0 0 2%
N = number of returned questionnaires; V = valid cases: number
of questionnaires that were completely answered and included in the
analysis.
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2220
Figure 1. Distribution of percentages of behavioral effects on
parents, by category of effect.
Results and conclusions. Frequency distributions of parents
responses regarding behavioral changes induced by the schools
influence are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1.
The results indicate that parents have a high level of
compliance with behavioral requests posed by schools. The above
frequency distribution reveals the following results:
2% (2 cases) of parents in all schools did not comply with the
schools request, because the request was perceived as unreasonable
or too difficult to perform.
22% (25 cases) of parents in all schools had pro-environmental
behavior prior to the schools requests;
76% (87 cases) of parents changed their behavior, adopting
environmentally friendly behavior in compliance with the schools
direct request;
A comparison of effects according to merged categories of time
span and extent of influences yields the results presented in Table
3 (see original categories in Table 2, above).
Table 3. Time span and extent of schools behavioral influence on
parents.
Time span & extent of influence categories
Frequencies Grouping of categories of behavioral effect
No influence 27 1 + 2
Influence in short-term/limited context 43 3 + 4 + 6
Influence in short-term/broader community context 2 7
Influence in extended-term/broader community context 42 5
TOTAL 114
22%
2%
11%
23%
37%
3% 3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Behavedasbefore
Nobehavioralchange,requestdifficult
Changedbehaviorforalimitedtime
Changedonlyinschoolcontext
Changedbehaviorbeyondschool'scontext
Changedbehaviorforalimited
time,onlyinschool'scontext
Changedbehaviorforalimited
time,beyondschool'scontext
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2221
Regarding the extent of schools influence on parents behavior,
39% (44 cases) of all the parents in the sample reported a
behavioral change beyond the school context. This group constitutes
51% of all influenced parents.
Regarding the duration of schools influence on parents behavior,
37% (42 cases) of all the parents in the sample reported that their
behavior was influenced over the extended-term; these parents
constitute 48% of all influenced parents. The remaining 52% of the
influenced parents reported a short-term behavioral change.
The above results suggest that most parents who modify their
behaviors in response to schools influences carry these changes
with them beyond the school context into their daily conduct within
their communities.
3.1.4.2. Indicator B: Degree of Closeness between the
Environmental Attitudes of Parents and Students in Comparison to
the Broader Community
The aim of indicator B is to assess schools influence on parents
environmental attitudes. The underlying assumption is as follows:
If schools are the source of influence, we would expect a gradient
of environmental attitudes in which schools are the most
pro-environmental, students less so, and parents the least. In
contrast, if the gradient of influences flows in a reverse
direction, from the broader community on to parents and on to their
children, we would expect the level of environmental attitudes to
decrease as one proceeds from the broader community to the
students.
Indicator B can be analyzed by a set of comparisons between
environmental attitudes that are enhanced by the schools EE
programs, attitudes of students, attitudes of their parents and
attitudes of the broader community. In the present study, an
alternative approach was applied for analyzing the degree of
closeness between environmental attitudes of parents and students
in comparison to those of the broader community. Alternatively, we
posed the question: Whose attitudes are more pro-environmental:
parents or students? The results would determine the direction of
influence flow. It is assumed that if schools are the source, the
students will score higher than the parents, whereas if the
community is the source, the parents will score higher than their
children. In order to ensure that the attitudes we assessed were
relevant to the actual school programs, we focused on attitudes
that schools reportedly aimed to influence through their EE
programs.
Data sources. We gathered information for indicator B by asking
parents and students to rank the level of their agreement with each
of 13 statements expressing environmental attitudes that were
relevant to the schools environmental education programs.
The list of attitudinal statements presented in the
questionnaire was composed on the basis of the schools reports
regarding attitudes enhanced by the school program. The method for
developing the list was based on four stages as follows: (a)
Interviews were held with school principals and leading
environmental teachers. Participants were asked to state the
attitudes that the EE program enhances with regard to each topic in
the environmental education program; (b) We developed a list of
attitudinal statements based on the responses of all six schools.
Additional statements were drawn out of the Secondary School
Environmental Literacy Assessment Instrument [77] and were added to
the list, forming a list of 62 attitudinal statements altogether;
(c) The list was handed out to the school principals and leading
environmental teachers, and they were asked to mark only statements
that
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2222
reflected attitudes that were enhanced by the school program;
(d) Thirteen statements that were marked by all six schools were
chosen to be included in the questionnaires to parents and
children.
Attitudes have cognitive as well as affective components
[78,79]. Because of these characteristics, it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish between attitudes, opinions and knowledge
[80,81]. Since both knowledge and opinions merge into a single
construct of attitudes [80], the attitudinal statements presented
in the questionnaire form of a combination of all three, thus
allowing a more reliable presentation of the concept of attitudes
as perceived by schools.
The structure of the questionnaire adhered to the following
guidelines: (a) adherence to the same level of generality in each
statement [80]; (b) using a set of statements rather than one
question as in opinion questionnaires [82]; (c) using statements
that reflected all three components of attitudes: cognitive,
evaluative and behavioral [83]. When developing the list of
statements, we referred to Sudman and Bradburns checklist of major
points in measuring attitudes ([83], p. 121).
The statements were as follows: (1) There is no connection
between human behavior and the state of the environment; (2) Human
beings should not be held responsible for global warming; (3) Cars
do not affect air pollution; (4) It is better to reduce in advance
waste production than to recycle waste; (5) It is everyones duty to
reduce energy consumption; (6) It saddens me to see that nature is
being destroyed in order to build buildings; (7) There is no need
to reduce oil consumption in Israel despite the fact that oil
consumption pollutes the environment; (8) There is a need to
produce electricity in less polluting ways, even if it increases
electricity prices; (9) The production of goods pollutes the
environment; therefore it is better to avoid buying new products
and to recycle existing products; (10) The waste I produce
adversely affects the environment; (11) If I recycle batteries,
plastics, and aluminum cans, it will improve the environment; (12)
Everyone can influence environmental quality; and (13) People have
the right to use nature as they please.
For each of the above statements, respondents were asked to mark
whether they agree, disagree, or do not know.
Methods of analysis. The responses of parents and students were
ordered on a 13 scale. Answers that expressed highly
pro-environmental attitudes (the reply: agree) received a score of
1; less pro-environmental attitudes (the reply: do not know)
received a score of 2; and non-pro-environmental attitudes (the
reply: disagree) received a score of 3. We used a three-point scale
rather than the standard five-point scale in order to simplify use
of the scale for the students. This consideration directed the use
of the same scale for the parents as well. The frequency
distribution of replies of parents and students is presented in
Table 4. The percentage distribution is presented in Figure 2.
To assess, for each school, whether the attitudes expressed by
parents were more or less environmental than those expressed by
students, a multinomial logistic regression was applied (see Table
5). Multinomial logistic regression is the extension for the
(binary) logistic regression when the categorical dependent outcome
has more than two levels. In this case, the scores of parents and
children had three levels: 1, 2, and 3. This method allows
comparison of multiple groups through a combination of binary
logistic regressions. Group comparisons are equivalent to the
comparisons for a dummy-coded dependent variable, with the group
with the highest numeric score used as the reference group.
Nominal-level independent variables are dichotomized in the
analysis.
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2223
In this case, school is a nominal-level independent variable,
and therefore a reference group must be used. School 5 was used as
a reference group, to which the four other schools were
compared.
Table 4. Frequency distribution of replies, by school and by
students and parents.
Reply School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5
Students Parents Students Parents Students Parents Students
Parents Students Parents 1Agree 961 369 811 218 329 138 1561 165
427 331 2Do not agree
215 29 114 22 85 17 314 13 55 18
3Do not know
260 52 133 38 64 13 315 12 82 19
TOTAL 1436 450 1058 278 478 168 2190 190 564 368
Figure 2. Percentage distribution of replies of students and
parents, by school.
Table 5. Multinomial regression results for parents vs.
students, by school.
Parameter School OR Wald 95% Confidence Limits Pr > ChiSq
Groupparents vs. students
1 2.17 1.67 2.82
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2224
Results and conclusions. When analyzing the responses of parents
and students, three possible results can be expected, each one
leading to a different conclusion, as follows:
1. Students display more positive environmental attitudes than
parents: This result suggests that a schools environmental program
can be a source of environmental influence.
2. Parents display more positive environmental attitudes than
students: The conclusion one would draw from such a result is that
schools environmental programs are not a source of environmental
influence.
3. Parents and students display equally positive environmental
attitudes. Based on this analysis, no conclusion can be drawn
regarding schools environmental programs as a source of
influence.
Table 4, Figure 2 and Table 5 present the following: (a)
frequency distribution of replies; (b) percentage distribution; and
(c) the results of the multinomial regression that was applied in
order to examine differences between the parents and students at
each school.
The comparison of percentages reveals that the percentage of
parents who replied agree to pro-environmental statements is
consistently higher than that of students.
We used a multinomial regression to assess the significance of
the results. The odds ratio (OR) value indicates the probability of
parents receiving a higher score than students. Parents are likely
to receive higher scores than students if OR >1. The
significance of the probability is indicated by the Pr > ChiSq
value.
The OR values in Table 5 indicate that in all five schools,
parents have a higher probability than students to receive a score
of 1 (pro-environmental attitudes). The results are significant in
schools 1, 3, 4, and 5. In school 2 the higher probability is
non-significant (OR = 1.48; p = 0.651). Therefore, most of the
parents in the sample ranked the statements in a way that reflects
attitudes that are more pro-environmental than those of their
children.
Although parents attitudes were not compared directly to the
attitudes of the broader community, the direction of the gradient
flow suggests that the parents sources of influence are derived
from sources that are not directly related to the schools
influence. The statements that parents and students were asked to
rank were produced following a process of selection of the main
attitudes that the schools environmental programs aimed to
influence. It is therefore possible to assume that if schools acted
as the sole source of influence, the percentage of parents who
replied agree to pro-environmental statements would be lower than
the percentage of students who chose this reply, since students are
naturally more exposed to the schools influences. Therefore, the
results indicate that schools do not act as a major source of
influence on parents attitudes.
3.1.4.3. Indicator C: Childrens Deliberate Influence on Parents
through Comments Aimed at Improving Environmental Behaviors of
Family Members
Indicator C has two aims as follows:
A. To assess childrens intergenerational influence on their
parents regarding environmental behavior; and
B. To indirectly assess students environmental behavior through
assessment of their active commenting on behavioral issues.
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2225
When students comment at home, this could mean that they have
internalized the schools environmental influence and that they
perceive environmental behavior as important. Commenting can be
perceived as a form of responsible environmental behavior that is
expressed in the form of persuasion [1,5,7,8,18,8486], and an
aspect of active participation [19,8791]. Though the sources of
environmental influences can be multiple and varied, we assume that
the sources of influence on environmental commenting by children,
is the schools influence. The assumption is derived from our
underlying model which perceives influence flows as gradients. The
closer one is to the source of influence, the stronger is the
influence. The farther one moves away from the source, the weaker
is the influence. The model directs that if the children were
mainly influenced by sources in the wider community and not the
school, we could assume that the parents would also be exposed to
the same or similar sources and there would be no need for children
to try to influence their parents. Whereas, if the school is the
source of influence, then the children who are in closest proximity
would hold the potential to pass on the influence to the parents
who are in less proximity.
Data sources. We gathered information for indicator C by asking
students and parents to rank the degree to which they (for
students) or their children (for parents) comment at home regarding
their familys environmental behavior.
Methods of analysis. The assessment of students deliberate
influence on parents through comments aimed at improving
environmental behavior consists of presenting the frequency
distributions (presented as percentages) of replies by parents and
by students next to each other in a column chart (see Figure 3).
This procedure enables cross-validation of results by comparing one
set of results to the other in a descriptive way.
Figure 3. Distribution of replies regarding behavioral comments
at home, presented as percentages, by school and by parents and
students.
4%13% 17% 15%
6% 6%0%
10% 8% 6%
40%
46%
28%24%
31% 31%
30%
37%
22% 26%
29%
25%
31%
24% 25%31%
35%
27%
36% 29%
27%
15%24%
37% 38%31% 35%
26%33%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Parents
Children
Parents
Children
Parents
Children
Parents
Children
Parents
Children
School1 School2 School3 School4 School5
4 Commentmorethanonceamonth
3 Rarelycomment
2 Nevercomment,parentsalreadyperform
1 Nevercomment
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2226
Results and conclusions. Figure 3 presents the distribution of
the replies according to clause number, for students and for
parents at each school.
The results presented in Figure 3 reveal that more than 53% of
students in schools 2, 3, 4, and 5, and 40.1% of students in school
1, replied that they comment at home regarding their families
environmental behavior.
Regarding parents, more than 55.2% of parents reported that
students attempt to exert intergenerational influence at home, as
expressed by commenting on environmental behavior. The highest
frequency of reports on students comments is in school 4 (70%).
Figure 3 presents the above distributions in a stacked column
chart. Both parents and students reported that students actively
attempt to influence environmental
behavior at home. When children try to influence others, whether
successful or not, they are exerting persuasive behavior which can
be perceived as form of active participation.
The results indicate that in most of the sampled schools, more
than half the students were highly influenced by the schools EE
programs to the degree that they actively attempted to exert
intergenerational influence. The results obtained from the students
questionnaires were confirmed by their parents in all six schools.
Furthermore, the parents even perceived that their children
commented more than the students reported. This difference can
imply that students commenting was highly noticed by the
parents.
3.1.4.4. Indicator D: Influences on the Students Environmental
Attitudes
The aim of indicator D is to determine whether students
environmental attitudes were influenced. Influences on students
attitudes can be an outcome of influences by the school, by
parents, by the media or by other influencing agents. By
administering questionnaires in which students had to rank
attitudes that were closely related to attitudes that schools
stated that they enhanced, we increased the possibility that
schools constituted a major source of influence on the development
of these attitudes among students. A more precise identification of
the sources of influence requires more complex analyses, which are
beyond the scope and immediate purposes of the present article. The
main interest is in analyzing whether students developed attitudes
that were compatible with attitudes enhanced by schools. We used
the following method in order to provide an answer to this
question.
Data sources. Data were collected from the students. Students
were asked to rank on a scale of 1 to 3 their level of agreement
with 13 statements
expressing environmental attitudes. These statements used here
to analyze influences on students attitudes were the same as those
used for indicator B to compare between students and parents.
Please see the section above on the data sources for indicator
B.
Methods of analysis. Frequency distributions of students replies
regarding environmental attitudes were plotted in a column chart
(see Figure 4).
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2227
Figure 4. Degree of students agreement with pro-environmental
statements, by school.
Results and conclusions. The results reveal that the students
attitudes are highly pro-environmental; more than 67% of responses
expressed agreement with pro-environmental statements. By compiling
this information and information gathered by other analyses [73],
it was concluded that students highly pro-environmental attitudes
are a cumulative result of schools influences combined with parents
positive feedback to these influences.
3.1.5. Main Conclusions of Study 1
Following are the main conclusions of the analyses presented
above regarding the influences of environmental schools in Israel
on parents and on students:
Influence on parents environmental behavior: Environmental
schools are very successful in creating direct influence on parents
environmental behavior and in creating indirect influence through
intergenerational attempts to influence behavior;
Influence on parents environmental attitudes: Schools
environmental programs are not a major source of influence on
parents environmental attitudes;
Influence on students environmental behavior: Environmental
schools are successful in influencing students environmental
behavior; and
Influence on students environmental attitudes: Environmental
schools are successful in influencing students environmental
attitudes.
The above conclusions provide a basis for the following two
claims:
Among school children, influences on behavior carry influences
on attitudes and vice versa. Among adults, conventional strategies
of influence exerted by environmental schools are more
effective in achieving influences on behavior than in achieving
influences on attitudes. In other words, among adults, the two
aspects of influence are more compartmentalized, meaning that
influences on behavior do not necessarily carry with them
influences on attitudes.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
School1 School2 School3 School4 School5
1 Agree2 Donotagree3 Donotknow
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2228
3.2. Study 2: Evaluation of the Influence of Formative
Experiences on Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors of Adults
3.2.1. Background of Study 2
The aim of Study 2 [92] was to evaluate the influence of various
formative experiences on acquisition of environmental attitudes and
behaviors among adults.
The study was carried out in Israel among a population that was
mixed with regard to environmental attitudes and behaviors. A
sample of adults was requested to rank on a Likert scale the degree
of influence of 20 variables representing formative experiences
(see details below). The ranking was done separately for influences
on attitudes and on behaviors.
For the purposes of the present article, only analyses and
results regarding differences between influences on attitudes and
influences on behavior have been selected for presentation.
The research was carried out by applying methods of factor
analysis and cluster analysis. Factor analysis is a method that
enables categories (factors) of variables to be identified on the
basis of levels of correlation between variables. Each variable in
our analysis is a formative influence, and each factor comprises
formative influences that are interconnected. The factors are an a
posteriori product of the analysis procedure. The methodological
approach is based on the assumption that formative influences are
not isolated variables, but rather interact with each other to form
influential effects. Therefore, analysis of the interactions can
provide insights into the different ways by which attitudes and
behaviors are formed.
We used cluster analysis to examine how the same formative
influences can have different effects on different people. Unlike
factor analysis, which allocates variables into categories, cluster
analysis allocates participants into categories, thus allowing
groups of respondents to be distinguished from one another
according to their responsiveness to a given set of experiences. In
the present paper we analyze the differences that were found
between groups of respondents with regard to influences on
attitudes and on behavior.
3.2.2. Participants
The research was carried out in two cities with similar
population densities. The first city is Haifa, the core city of the
northern metropolitan area. Haifas population size is 265,000, and
its urban density is 4183.2 people per km2 [76]. The second city is
Raanana, located at the middle ring of the central metropolitan
area of Tel Aviv. Raananas population size is 70,000, and its urban
density is 4046.5 people per km2 [77]. Data for the research were
collected during the years 20092010.
The sample was composed of adults whose environmental attitudes
and behaviors were not known in advance. In order to control
demographic variables that could influence environmental attitudes
and behaviors, we attempted to choose a homogeneous sample, thus
ensuring that differences between participants could be mostly
attributed to personal characteristics, rather than to
socio-economic and cultural background. All participants met the
following criteria: (a) ages ranged from 30 to 50 years; (b) were
parents to children in the ages of 1115 years; and (c) had higher
education. All participants were living in secular Jewish
communities with a cluster membership of 89 in the socio-economic
index [76].
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2229
The sample included 95 participants. Gender distribution of
participants compatible with the above criteria was 64% females and
36% males.
The sample was composed of two groups of adults. One group
consisted of parents of students who were attending environmental
schools (ENV) (N = 67), and the other group consisted of parents to
students who were not attending environmental schools (N-ENV) (N =
28) but rather attended regular schools located in the same types
of neighborhoods with the same population characteristics as those
of the environmental schools. The parents in the ENV group are not
necessarily more environmentally committed compared with those in
the N-ENV group. The parents in the ENV group enrolled their
children in an environmental school on the basis of their vicinity
to the school and not by parents choice. The difference in the
sizes of the two samples is derived from differences in data
collection methods. More details follow regarding data collection
from each of the groups.
3.2.3. Data Collection from the ENV Group
Data collection from the ENV group was done by distributing
questionnaires to parents of children in two environmental schools,
one school in Haifa and one in Raanana. We handed out 580
questionnaires to the students at the schools. The students were
asked to deliver the questionnaires to their parents and return
them completed: 157 questionnaires were filled in by the parents
(mostly by the mothers) and returned, and 67 questionnaires were
compatible with the above criteria for participation, and were used
for analyses.
3.2.4. Data Collection from the N-ENV Group
We collected data by handing out 150 questionnaires to parents
living in the above two cities whose children were attending
non-environmental schools. These schools were located in similar
neighborhoods to those of the environmental schools. The
questionnaires were handed out directly to the parents as they were
coming out of parents meetings at schools. Eighty-seven
questionnaires were filled in and returned. Only 28 questionnaires
were compatible with the above criteria for participation and were
used for analyses.
3.2.5. The Questionnaire
The written questionnaire to participants was composed of two
parts. The first part included a request for demographic details.
The second part included three questions, as follows:
Question 1: Self-ranking of environmental attitudes and
behavior. Participants were asked to rank on a Likert scale between
1 (very low) and 5 (very high) the following two statements: (a)
The degree of importance I attribute to environmental issues is;
and (b) The degree to which I consider my behavior as
environmentally friendly is.
Question 2: Sources of influence on attitudes. Question 2 was
phrased as follows: Following is a list of possible sources of
influence. Please rank the degree of influence of each source on
the development of your attitudes regarding the environment.
Participants were asked to rank on a Likert scale ranging from 1
(no influence) to 5 (very influential) the following items: books,
newspapers, television, internet, movies, the school in which my
child studies, conversations, meetings and
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2230
interactions with people, the schools in which I have studied,
certain teacher(s), my personality, a leader/a guide, a group
activity, parents and family, my child(ren), time spent in nature
or certain experiences that are related to nature, youth movements,
academic studies or continuation studies, work/occupation, the
community in which I live, political or institutional formats,
constitutive experience, being a parent, other.
Question 3: Sources of influence on behaviors. Question 3 was
phrased identically to Question 2 above, with one difference:
Parents were asked to rank the sources of influence on their
behaviors towards the environment.
3.2.6. Methods of Analysis, Results and Conclusions
3.2.6.1. Factors Influencing Attitudes; Factors Influencing
Behavior
To analyze formative influences on attitudes and formative
influences on behavior, two sets of factor analysis were applied.
Factor analysis is a statistical test that explores which variables
in a data set are most related to each other [93]. The first set
analyzed factors influencing attitudes, and the second set analyzed
factors influencing behaviors. The analyses were applied to the
total sample comprising the ENV and N-ENV groups pooled together
(only valid cases were considered; N = 65).
Following are the results of the analyses by factor title,
variables and their influence (presented as percent of variance).
Table 6 presents the analysis of influences on attitudes, and Table
7 presents the analysis of influences on behavior. A glance at the
two tables reveals that there are qualitative (as expressed in the
factors components) and quantitative (as expressed in percent of
variance) differences between factors that influence attitudes and
factors that influence behaviors.
Table 6. Factors influencing attitudes, by title, variables and
their influence (% of variance).
Factor number
Factor title Variables Influence
(% of variance) 1 My past and present close
relationships and myself as a citizen
My child; being a parent; parents and family; my community;
political/ institutional informants; my childs school
15.28
2 Personal and interpersonal interactions with informal
educational agents and with nature
Nature; personality; youth movement; a leader/guide
13.83
3 My early formal education My teacher/s; schools in which Ive
studied 10.31 4 The media'fast intake'
information sources Television; internet; newspapers 9.42
5 Formal, cognitive informative sources
Work/occupation; academic/continuation studies
9.39
6 Informal, 'medium-to-slow-intake' informative sources
Movies; books; discussions/ interactions with people
8.32
TOTAL % of variance 66.55
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2231
Table 7. Factors influencing behavior, by title, variables and
their influence (% of variance).
Factor number
Factor title Variables Influence
(% of variance) 1 My early formal education, books
and institutional formative sources Schools in which Ive
studied; my teacher/s; books; political/ institutional
informants
14.48
2 The media 'fast intake' formative sources
Newspapers; television; internet; movies 14.28
3 My present intimate relationships and its related circle
My child; my childs school; my community; being a parent
11.96
4 My past close relationships, myself and interpersonal
relationships
Discussions/ interactions with people; personality; parents and
family
11.00
5 Formal, Cognitive informative sources
Work/occupation; academic/ continuation studies
10.52
6 Interpersonal interactions with informal educational agents
and with nature
A leader/guide; youth movement; nature 9.9
TOTAL % of variance 72.14
The factor analysis reveals that six factors form categories of
influence on attitudes. Factors 1, 2, and 6 (accounting together
for 37.43% of the total explained variance) represent mainly a
persons informal, personal and intimate relationships and
experiences. Factors 35 (accounting together for 29.12% of the
total explained variance) represent the more remote and formal
circles that influence our lives: past and present formal education
(Factors 3 and 5), and the media (Factor 4).
The factor analysis reveals that six factors form categories of
influences on behavior. Factors 3, 4, and 6 (accounting together
for 32.86% of the total explained variance) represent a persons
close circles and intimate relationships in the present and in the
past. Factors 1, 2, and 5 (accounting together for 39.28% of the
total explained variance) represent formal formative influences and
the media.
When we used the factor analyses to compare influences on
attitudes to influences on behavior, we observed that with regard
to influences on attitudes, a higher percent of the variance
(37.43%) is explained by formative experiences that are related to
a persons closest circles and intimate experiences and
relationships, whereas with regard to influences on behavior, a
higher percent of the variance (39.28%) is explained by formal
formative influences and the media.
The above results indicate that factors that influence attitudes
are different from those that influence behavior. Most of the
influences on environmental attitudes incubate by slow processes
that involve personal and interpersonal experiences, whereas most
of the influences on behavior involve more formal experiences
and/or rather rapid intake processes (as expressed by the
media).
On the basis of the above results, we conclude that
institutional formal networks of influences and the media are
expected to be more successful in influencing peoples behavior than
in influencing peoples attitudes. In order to be able to influence
peoples attitudes, there is a need for strategies that are directed
to more personal and interpersonal formative experiences. These
ideas will be further elaborated in the discussion.
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2232
3.2.6.2. Identifying Types of Participants by Reactions to
Formative Experiences
We used cluster analysis to identify types of people who exhibit
similarities in their reactions to potentially influential
experiences. The analysis was applied to the rankings of the ENV
group (N = 67), separately for formative influences on attitudes
and for formative influences on behaviors.
The cluster analysis allowed the sample to be separated into two
types (clusters) of respondents. Cluster 1 was termed the social
type, and cluster 2 was termed the private type. One of the main
differences between the two clusters was that people who belonged
to cluster 1 (social) were more influenced by formative experiences
than were people who belong to cluster 2. We used the term social
types to denote participants who belonged to cluster 1, because of
their high responsiveness to external influences.
Further analysis examined the distribution of participants
between clusters. The results are presented in two tables. Table 8
presents the distribution of cases between clusters with regard to
influences on attitudes, and Table 9 presents the distribution
between clusters with regard to influences on behavior. The results
shown in the two tables were compared, and conclusions were drawn
regarding influences on attitudes in comparison to influences on
behavior.
Table 8. Distribution of cases between clusters regarding
influences on attitudes.
Cluster No. of cases Percent of cases 1Social type 38 59%
2Private type 26 41%
Invalid cases 3 - Total valid cases 64 100%
Table 9. Distribution of cases between clusters regarding
influences on behavior.
Cluster No. of cases Percent of cases 1Social type 48 72%
2Private type 15 28%
Invalid cases 3 - Total valid cases 64 100%
The results regarding influences on attitudes show a difference
of 18% between the number of participants in cluster 1 and that in
cluster 2.
The results regarding influences on behavior show a difference
of 44% between the number of participants in cluster 1 and that in
cluster 2.
A comparison between Tables 8 and 9 regarding distribution of
cases shows that the difference between the two clusters with
regard to influence on behavior is substantially larger than the
difference between the two clusters with regard to influence on
attitudes (2.4 times greater; 44% difference between clusters of
behavior, as compared to 18% difference between clusters of
attitudes).
The above result implies that the adults in the sample are more
open to accepting influences on their behavior than they are open
to accepting influences on their attitudes.
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2233
3.2.6.3. Analysis of Environmental Schools Influence
The aim of the following analysis is to determine in which
aspect of influence (attitudes versus behavior) environmental
schools in Israel have more effective influence on students
parents. To this end, the following procedure was applied: Of the
20 variables that were ranked by parents in the ENV group, the six
variables that received the highest mean rankings by cluster and by
influence aspect were singled out and depicted in a comparison
table. Table 10 presents a comparison between clusters regarding
variables with the highest impact in influencing attitudes and in
influencing behavior.
Table 10. The six most influential variables, by cluster
(social, private) and by aspect of influence (attitudes vs.
behavior).
Cluster Type Cluster 1Social Cluster 2Private
Attitudes (N = 38) Behavior (N = 48) Attitudes (N = 26) Behavior
(N = 15) Variable Mean
ranking Variable Mean
ranking Variable Mean
ranking Variable Mean
ranking Personality 4.40 My child 4.40 Newspapers 3.40
Television 4.10 My child 4.30 Personality 4.20 Television 3.90
Newspapers 3.90
Nature 4.30 Nature 4.10 Nature 3.50 Internet 3.70 Internet 4.20
Being a parent 3.90 My child 3.40 Personality 3.50
Newspapers 4.03 My childs school 3.77 Internet 3.20 My child
3.20 Television 4.03 My parents and
family 3.75 Personality 3.20 Nature 3.10
The following observations emerge from Table 10 regarding the
direct influences of environmental schools and the indirect
influences through intergenerational influences by children:
Regarding influences on attitudes: A. The variable my childs
school does not appear as one of the six most influential
variables
on the parents attitudes, neither in cluster 1 (social), nor in
cluster 2 (private). There is no indication for environmental
schools direct influence on the attitudes of the students
parents;
B. The variable my child appears among the six most influential
variables in both clusters 1 (social) and 2 (private). Therefore,
there is a strong indication for environmental schools indirect
influence on the attitudes of parents through intergenerational
influence.
Regarding influences on behavior: C. The variable my childs
school appears among the six most influential variables on
behavior for parents who belong to cluster 1 (social) and not
for parents who belong to cluster 2 (private). Environmental
schools appear to be highly effective in exerting direct influence
on the behavior of parents who belong to the social type, which
comprises the majority of the sample (72%);
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2234
D. The variable my child appears among the six most influential
variables in both clusters 1 (social) and 2 (private). Therefore,
there is a strong indication for environmental schools indirect
influence on the behavior of parents through intergenerational
influence.
With regard to environmental schools direct influence on
students parents, the above results imply that environmental
schools in Israel are more successful at influencing the parents
behavior than at influencing the parents attitudes towards the
environment, and that this success is limited to influencing the
social type.
3.2.7. Main Conclusions of Study 2
Following are the main conclusions of Study 2 regarding the
influences of environmental formative experiences on adults who are
parents to students:
Influences on attitudes are more effectively achieved through
formative experiences that are related to personal, interpersonal
and a persons closest circles.
Influences on behavior are more effectively achieved through
formal formative influences and the media.
Adults are more susceptible to influences on their behavior than
to influences on their attitudes. Application of cluster analysis
indicates that as regards susceptibility to influences, the
attitudes of the adults in the sample are consistent with the
metaphor of rock bottom commitments [51], whereas behaviors are
more prone to being influenced.
Environmental schools in Israel are more effective in directly
influencing parents behavior than in directly influencing their
attitudes. Non-direct, intergenerational influence affects behavior
and attitudes equally.
The above conclusions provide a basis for the following
claims:
A. Among adults, different strategies need to be employed for
influencing attitudes and for influencing behavior; and
B. Among adults, conventional formal education strategies can
achieve influences on behavior more easily than they can achieve
influences on attitudes.
The following discussion will elaborate on these findings.
4. Discussion
The aims of the present article were twofold: (a) to readdress
the relationships between attitudes and behavior with a view
towards stressing the more complex and constructivist
characteristics of development of environmental attitudes, as
compared to development of environmental behavior; and (b) to
challenge the long-lived perception that acquisition of
environmental behavior is a more advanced achievement of
environmental education compared to acquisition of environmental
attitudes.
To achieve these aims, we presented the results and conclusions
of two studies. The main insights that emerge from the two studies
are as follows: Environmental education influence is not a unified
effect, but rather composite; attitudes are developed and
influenced by different processes compared with behavior; the
strategies required for influencing adults attitudes differ from
those required for
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2235
influencing their behavior; as a person matures, the processes
that influence attitudes diverge from those that influence
behavior; adults are more susceptible to influences on their
behavior than to influences on their attitudes; and the
conventional behavioral approach of Israeli schools environmental
education programs is more effective in influencing adults
attitudes than in influencing their behaviors.
The present discussion will analyze the above results in
relation to previous research of attitudebehavior
relationships.
4.1. Strategic Differences in Influencing and Evaluating
Attitudes and Behavior
Previous research in the field has taught us that behavior and
attitudes belong to different cognitive domains and are not
directly interrelated [1,5,11,18,40,45,94]. Furthermore, evidence
from the field of cognitive psychology has revealed that cognition
is not necessarily related to behavior in ways that can be
predicted a priori [38,39,9597]. Our results support these claims
by showing that the factors that influence attitudes are different
from those that influence behavior.
The studies presented above indicate that among adults,
different variables interact to produce different degrees of
influence on participants attitudes and on participants behavior.
Factor analyses revealed that most of the influences on attitudes
were derived from slow processing of interpersonal experiences,
whereas most of the influences on behavior were derived from more
formal and remote formative experiences such as experiences in the
workplace and exposure to the media. These findings are consistent
with previous research that highlighted the interpersonal and
constructivist nature of attitude development [40,51].
The distinction made here between influences on attitudes and
influences on behavior has implications for a wide range of issues
in environmental education research and practice. If adults
attitudes and their behavior are influenced by different processes,
then when designing environmental programs, there is a need to
employ different strategies for influencing acquisition of
environmental attitudes and for influencing acquisition of
environmental behavior. Therefore, the first question that needs to
be asked prior to planning a program is, which aspect of influence
does the program aim to achieve? More research is required in order
to identify effective strategies for influencing each of these
aspects.
These findings imply that, in the context of environmental
education, a clear distinction needs to be made between evaluation
of influences on attitudes and evaluation of influences on
behavior. Uzzell [98] studied the conditions that allow schools to
exert catalytic influences on parents. He concluded by stating that
a catalytic effect can occur, but it occurs with a limited number
of child-parent systems, under very specific and limited conditions
(which he outlined in the study). The results of the studies
presented above demonstrate that when a clear distinction is made
between catalytic effects on behaviors and catalytic effects on
attitudes, the findings are more definite, and the observed effects
on behaviors are noticeable and measurable. In contrast, if both
types of influences are measured together, low achievements
regarding influence on attitudes can mask high achievements
regarding influence on behavior.
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2236
4.2. Differences between Influencing Children and Influencing
Adults
The results of the studies suggest that the observed distinction
between influence on behavior and influence on attitudes may not
apply to children in the same way that it applies to adults.
Schools were effective in influencing the behavior and attitudes of
children. They were also successful in influencing the behavior of
parents. However, schools were not as successful in influencing the
attitudes of parents. These results point to an important
differentiation between influencing adults and influencing
children. While the results indicate that among adults there is a
separation between the domains of behavior and attitudes, among
children, the domains seem less compartmentalized. These findings
are compatible with findings in the field of cognitive
developmental psychology, which demonstrate that childrens
cognition is less compartmentalized than adults [66,67,99]. An
environmental literacy survey [86] among school students found a
greater correlation between attitudes and behaviors among students
in grade 6 than among those in grade 12. These findings support the
findings of the present research and indicate that the separation
between the above domains advances gradually as children
mature.
The following questions arise from the differences that were
found between influencing children and influencing adults:
1. Is there a difference between children and adults in the
duration of influence on attitudes and on behaviors?
2. Are the influences on children deep or are they
circumstantialwill they dissipate when the influencing forces are
removed?
3. At what stage of life do influences on behavior separate from
influences on attitudes? 4. At the time of their separation, is the
fate of both behavior and attitudes the same? Or does one
type of influence remain while the other type of influence is
removed or replaced?
Further research is required to establish whether the
differences that were found between children and adults are derived
from psychological structural differences or from circumstantial
differences, such as differences in the amount of exposure to the
schools influential effects.
4.3. Conventional Educational Approaches Influence Behavior More
Easily than They Influence Attitudes
The results of the two studies challenge the traditional
environmental education model from the 1980s, which holds that
environmental literacy advances in stages, from knowledge to
attitudes and finally to behavior. Behavioral changes among adults
seem to be easier to achieve than changes in attitudes through
conventional educational strategies of influence. The results
obtained in the two presented studies are not surprising when
viewed in light of some well-known behavioral campaigns. For
example, in the 1960s, there was a very successful campaign in
Israel advocating against picking wildflowers. As a result of the
campaign, wildflowers that were almost extinct because of
over-picking completely recovered and continue to flourish to this
day. Other examples can be drawn from campaigns worldwide that
promote recycling and buying greener products. Intensive behavioral
campaigns can gain demonstrable success in a relatively short time.
Their success can be reinforced by law, regulations (school
regulations in this case), or social pressure [100105].
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2237
On the other hand, attitudinal changes are more complex
cognitive and affective processes that are slower to develop and
can emerge following behavioral change [62]. The results indicate
that as regards environmental education, changes in behavior might
contribute to changes in attitude to a stronger degree than vice
versa.
Schools were mostly successful in influencing parents behavior.
The theory of social constructivism can provide some explanations
for these findings. According to the theory, attitudes are socially
constructed, and people need to be involved in their learning
processes [106,107]. The standard top-down pedagogy, which is still
widely implemented by the studied schools in Israel, does not
promote social construction of attitudes among parents; rather, it
fosters certain behaviors through a behaviorist approach to
education. Parents participation in the schools environmental
education can best be described as tokenism [108] in which
participation is unidirectional from schools to parents and not
reciprocal. The studies suggest that more effective influence on
attitudes can be achieved through constructivist approaches that
actively involve adults by relating to their closest and immediate
circles.
The perception of linear advancement from attitudes to behavior
was already disproved in the 1990s (in environmental education
research, and earlier in psychology research). Yet, as mentioned
above, the notion of the superiority of behavioral acquisition over
attitudinal acquisition has not received the same level of
attention in the literature and still persists. The present studies
provide evidence that such assumptions are inappropriate in the
field of environmental education. The present studies support the
perception of attitudes as representing rock-bottom commitments
[51,52]. The evidence presented above suggests that attitude
formation stems from a persons most intimate past and present
experiences, which form a part of ones self identity. Behavior, in
contrast, is more influenced by non-personal formative influences.
Viewing acquisition of environmental attitudes as merely a step
along the way reflects a rationale mechanistic view of education,
overlooking the role of constructivism from both personal and
societal perspectives.
4.4. Reassessment of the Ultimate Goal of Environmental
Education
Accumulating research regarding the influences of behavior on
attitudes [58,109,110], and regarding the effectiveness of
behaviorist approaches in influencing behavior [111113], suggests
that there is a need to reassess the status of achieving behavioral
change as an ultimate goal of environmental education and to
reconsider the status of attitude development as an environmental
education goal.
It is customary among scholars to assume that behavior
acquisition is the ultimate goal of environmental education. The
basis for this assumption is the concept that political-cultural
changes towards environmental management and practices depend in
part on personal behavioral changes [27,104,114]. This implies that
the prevailing perception regarding EE goals is that the whole is a
sum of its parts. It is assumed that if behaviors change on a
personal level, it follows that behaviors will change on a societal
level, such as in industry and in public policy (including
legislation, regulation, etc.). Reality seems to suggest otherwise.
For example, Coyles report regarding the environmental literacy of
U.S. citizens claimed that throughout ten years of continuous
surveys, the results consistently showed that the American public
was environmentally illiterate [36].
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2238
This statement was derived from the surveys results that showed
low levels of public pro-environmental behavior but high levels of
pro-environmental attitudes. Coyles conclusion regarding illiteracy
reflects a belief that the main achievement of environmental
literacy should be environmental behavior because only behavior can
drive changes. That interpretation of the surveys results stands in
contrast to the international revolution that the world has
undergone in the past ten years. At the same time that the
NEETF/Roper surveys were revealing low levels of environmental
behavior and therefore low levels of environmental literacy, the
environmental movement worldwide was becoming mainstream. In the
U.S. as well, during the past two decades, the environment has
moved politically from being almost a non-issue to being a main
issue. One of the culminations of these worldwide processes is
reflected by the granting of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to Albert
Arnold (Al) Gore Jr., on the basis that the Earth's future climate
must be treated with the utmost seriousness and with the
precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. [115]
These contradicting observations call into question the widely
accepted notion regarding the importance of behavioral change and
development of active citizenship as a precondition for advancing
towards a more sustainable world. Evidence suggests that the whole
is not a simplistic, linear sum of its parts, and that personal
behavioral changes are not the driving forces behind major
political changes; rather, changes in public attitudes may be the
driving forces, when formed and accumulated through social
constructivist processes. The present studies add another dimension
to this argument by focusing attention to the different ways in
which behavioral changes occur as compared to attitudinal
changes.
Stemming from the above, the question then becomes, what is more
important in environmental education: to influence people to act
green, or to influence their attitudes towards the environment? The
question calls for clarification of the goals of environmental
education. If the goal is to create personal changes in norms of
behavior, then behavioral influence is more important than
influence on attitudes. However, if the goal is to advance the
world towards sustainability, then perhaps what really matters is
educating for environmental attitudes.
4.5. The Studies Limitations
The main objective in presenting the two studies was to question
the taken-for-granted perception that promoting behavioral change
is a more important goal of environmental education compared with
promoting attitudinal change. The studies were limited in sample
sizes, therefore, limiting generalizability. The response rate of
parents in Study 1 was 24%. The question to be asked is: In what
ways could the non-responding 76% of parents influence the results?
For estimating, we postulated that parents who filled in the
questionnaires are likely to be either more highly environmentally
aware then the other parents, or/and more involved in their
childrens learning, making sure that whatever arrives at home from
school and requires their response, will be responded. With these
assumptions in mind, the following influences on results might be
expected if all parents would have filled in the
questionnaires:
As regards Indicator A (Degree to which parents adopted
responsible environmental behaviour in response to the schools
regulations/requests)lower levels of environmental behaviour
-
Sustainability 2012, 4 2239
conformity are expected. In the same way that these parents did
not reply to questionnaires they were asked to fill in, it can be
assumed that some of them did not perform the required
environmental behaviors that were requested by schools.
As regards Indicator B (Degree of closeness between the
environmental attitudes of parents and students in comparison to
the broader community)the results indicated that schools were not
the source of influence on the parents environmental attitudes. It
is assumed that if this highly responsive group of parents was not
influenced by the school, the less responsive group would be even
less influenced. Therefore, we expect that in ideal conditions in
which 100% of parents would have responded, our results regarding
low influence on environmental attitudes would have been markedly
stronger.
As Regards Indicator C (Childrens deliberate influence on
parents through comments aimed at improving environmental
behaviours of family members)high compatibility was found between
the students replies (100% of sample) and the parents replies (24%
of sample). We assume that the same high level of compatibility
would have been maintained if all the parents would have filled in
the questionnaires.
We conclude that regardless of the low response rate of parents,
our results are valid. They are supported by the results of Study 2
as well as by the above analysis based on our assumptions regarding
the none-participants characteristics.
The results of the studies can be used as a trigger for
reopening the discussion regarding the goals of environmental
education and to question the relatively high importance attributed
to influencing behavior. It is recommended that future studies
develop and implement methodologies designed specifically for
evaluating the different processes involved in influencing
attitudes and influencing behaviors.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Michael Valos and Michael Polonsky, both
researchers at the School of Management and Marketing, Deakin
University, Victoria, Australia. We are deeply thankful for their
support in the reviewing process. Their comments and discussions
were of great value to this article.
We would also like to thank the reviewers for their productive
comments and for shari